User talk:Theearthisbluelikeanorange

January 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Vijay Eswaran. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grayfell, thanks for the feedback — I understand perfectly (and I am incidentally responsible for deleting some of the previous non-neutral/commercial material on this page). Regarding the awards section, please note that my original edit simply listed the awards in chronological order, and that I restored the original version when I thought it had been mistakenly deleted by one of your reverts. Best regards, Theearthisbluelikeanorange (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vijay Eswaran, you may be blocked from editing. Find reliable sources. The lede summarizes the body of the article. It is not the place to insert new, unsupported opinions. Do not add original research. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

Hello. On your userpage , you say you have been a Wikipedian since December 2, 2012. Your account was only created a few days ago, on January 10, 2018, and you do not appear to have any older contributions on other Wikimedia projects. Please be aware that operating multiple accounts is, in most cases, against Wikipedia's rules. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and reply here, on your talk page, explaining this discrepancy. You should also be aware that Wikipedia has strict rules and guidelines for those who edit with a conflict of interest. Please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The terms of service do not allow for undisclosed paid (or compensated) editing. Please review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Again, please respond here, once you have have read and understood these guidelines. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Greyfell, I understand your concerns. I have been editing Wikipedia on and off as an unregistered user since around 2012-2013. As a student I used to contribute once a while with minor edits and mostly on the french wiki (grammar/refs). I finally created an account a couple weeks ago to contribute in a more meaningful way to Asian business related pages, as they often are non-existant or misleading and as I am now an assistant professor tired to read absurd student's work inspired by Wikipedia inaccuracies. In the case at hand the confusion between a subsidiary and a holding is unfortunately extremely common on wikipedia and not a technicality (QIGroup->Qnet / Balkrishna Industries->Balkrishna Tires / ...). An easy to remember example of the implications of such businesses structures would be to sue Alphabet (holding) or Google (Alphabet's subsidiary) for a Youtube (Google's subsidiary) copyright infringement.

I apologize for my clumsy edits and realize that Vijay Eswaran's page is a controversial one, I'm honestly just fed up with my students not trying nearly enough and relying too much on Wikipedia :(

Theearthisbluelikeanorange (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure as a business professor, you're aware of the common discrepancy between precision vs. accuracy. Listing a specific date for the start of your Wikipedia activity is precise, but it is by your own admission, not particularly accurate. Presumably you wouldn't accept such sloppiness from your students.

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. I cannot find any source which says the QI Group is on NASDAQ. This is not normally difficult-to-find information. The article should attempt to summarize why Eswaran is notable according to sources. It is not a platform for you to share your expertise beyond what you, as an expert, can find in reliable sources. I am aware of the distinction between holding company and subsidiary, but this is a distraction. As I assume you're aware, such legalities are often artificially constructed as legal insulation, not necessarily as a vitally important functional distinction. Sources would, of course, be needed. The reason Eswaran is notable, according to sources, is because of Qnet and multi-level marketing, not because of whatever exchange the company may or may not be on. If you really must have a comparison, the article on Sergey Brin mentions Google almost a hundred times, while mentioning Alphabet 4 times. Brin is defined by Google, not by Alphabet. If QI Group being publicly traded somewhere is now a defining trait of Eswaran, it should be possible to support this through sources. If QI Group is now on NASDAQ or any other exchange, that would first belong at Qnet, wouldn't it? Well, it would belong with a reliable source, which again, I couldn't find.

So it sounds like if your intention is to clean up the article for your students, you should hold yourself to the same standard you're holding them to. Grayfell (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greyfell,

Indeed, I can no longer find any reference Qi Group being a publicly-traded company, so either I'm a victim of fake news or I'm losing my marbles…! In any case, thanks for your attention to detail, as this could have been quite awkward.

While I understand your points concerning Eswaran's business relationships, I nevertheless think it's worthwhile to mention links to Qi Group. It's true that Eswaran was made famous by QNET (a subsidiary of Qi), but he's recently been shifting his attention away from QNET and towards Qi (for example Qi City or the healthcare system 1 2 ). Insofar as I understand Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, ledes are supposed to present the most relevant information about a given topic, and the recency of information weighs heavily in determining its relevancy. For a comparable example, please refer to Larry Page's page; the lede mentions Alphabet 3 times, despite the fact that Google accounts for Page's fame.

Incidentally, the fact that QNET is a subsidiary of Qi is mentioned on the QNET page as well, and for good reason: it's essential to place QNET in the context of Qi if one is to understand its behavior. By extension, it is essential to place Eswaran in the context of Qi if we are to understand *his* behavior.

Lastly, concerning my sign-up date, I understand the distinction you're drawing, though I fail to see why it's so important. The date indicated in my widget is precise (in number of years and months) and, indeed, imprecise in terms of days and hours. Although I understand why date and time of publication is important (right down to minutes and seconds), I'm not at all convinced that the exact moment of user sign-up is an informative metric. Theearthisbluelikeanorange (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources you link are routine regional news blurbs which are either primary sources or largely derived from press releases. They are about a single project done with the involvement and financing of other companies. Two of the three don't even mention Vijay Eswaran at all. You say that QI is moving away from Qnet, but this would need to be supported by a reliable, independent source. Using sources that merely suggest this move is WP:SYNTH, and is not acceptable. If sources clearly state this, it would belong in the article only according to due weight, also.

Qnet's portfolio and PR efforts are only significant to the extent they are supported by reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and while comparison's to Google might be gratifying to Eswaran's ego, articles must be judged along on their own merits. Comparison's to any other article are only of limited value.

As for your sign up date, nobody asked you to use that "widget". You, as the person who chose that date, should be able to explain why. As a brand-new account-holder, your first edit was to add an optional userbox, along with a lot of other templates common to experienced users. This gives the impression that you've been around a lot longer than is supported by evidence. This was one week before editing an article with a long history of promotional editing and sock-puppetry. I hope it's obvious why this is a red flag which attracts scrutiny. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]